Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Biden Federal Contractor Minimum Wage Order

The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on Dec. 2, 2024. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

U.S. Supreme Court justices on Jan. 13 rejected a request to review a lower court order on President Joe Biden’s order establishing a $15 minimum wage for federal contractors.

The justices turned down the petition from the Colorado River Outfitters Association, a rafting trade group, Duke Bradford, and Bradford’s company, Arkansas Valley Adventures.

The justices did not provide a reason for rejecting the petition, which asked them to review a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Judges on that court ruled in a 2024 split decision that Biden had the authority to compel contractors to pay employees at least $15 an hour. Biden issued the order in 2021.

Bradford, his company, and the trade group said that the minimum wage mandate would force rafting companies to take drastic action, such as eliminating longer trips, because guides typically work more than 40 hours in a week and are usually paid flat “trip salaries” rather than an hourly wage. Under a Trump-era rule, outfitters such as Arkansas Valley Adventures (AVA) were exempted from federal contractor minimum wage rules.

“The legal problem the mandate creates is straightforward: the Procurement Act simply does not authorize the President to impose a minimum wage on federal contractors, let alone permittees like AVA who merely operate on federal land,” the petition to the Supreme Court stated.

If the Tenth Circuit’s interpretation is allowed to stand, then it “represents a massive expansion of the President’s power under the Act,” the petition added.

The petition noted that several other appeals courts have ruled differently on the matter, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which determined in late 2024 that the order went beyond the president’s powers.

The Supreme Court regularly takes up so-called circuit splits to establish which lower court rulings have been correct.

The Pacific Legal Foundation represented the petitioners.

“We are disappointed that the Supreme Court rejected the Bradford case, but we are confident that the Court will one day address the president’s assertion of boundless authority to regulate the business practices of companies such as our client’s under the Procurement Act,” Steve Simpson, the foundation’s director of separation of powers litigation, told The Epoch Times in an emailed statement.

“In the meantime, we will continue to fight against unilateral executive action in this and other cases.”

The Department of Labor, a defendant in the case, and the Department of Justice, which represented the government, did not respond to requests for comment.